Now that the dust of the General Election has settled, it is time, I think, to discuss how a better and fairer electoral system could be established for future elections to ensure an even more democratic society.
I have four suggestions to make and I hope that they will stimulate more ideas from others. We can contribute more to Singapore‘s political development by sharing our ideas. This will also help Singaporeans to be more politically conscious and active.
Firstly, ensure that every eligible voter gets a chance to vote.
There are many adult Singaporeans who have yet to cast their votes because they happen to live in constituencies uncontested by the opposition. This is no doubt a drawback to our democratic system.
I believe that every eligible voter should be able to exercise his or her right to vote, even in cases of walkovers.This will allow voters to know who their Members of Parliament are. On the other hand, MPs will also get a better understanding of the constituents they are serving and not become MPs simply because the wards are not contested by the opposition.
If the MP or MPs in the uncontested constituencies, whether they are Single-Member Constituency or Group Representation Constituency, obtained less than 50% of valid vote, by-elections should be held. This will make the valid votes won more representative on a national level.
Secondly, the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament system should replace the Nominated MP scheme.
The percentage of NCMPs should be raised to 10%, in other words, allow up to 8 or 10 NCMPs in Parliament. They can also include the best losers from the ruling party. With 10 opposition MPs in the House, ministers and MPs will have no lack of opportunities to hone their political skills. This will improve the quality of debates in Parliament and make them more substantive and meaningful.
True, Nominated MPs can and do speak up for the particular fields they represent. But other than making comments and suggestions, they have no voting powers. NMPs are also seen by some people as supporters of the government. I believe the ruling party will welcome the existence of a constructive opposition.
To me, the ruling party‘s so-called shadow Cabinet or other schemes, can neither replace a constructive opposition nor help the growth of democracy.
Thirdly, the ratio of GRCs and SMCs should be 3 to 1.
The current 8 to 1 ratio means that many candidates will become MPs without a fight and thus not be able to display their leadership qualities at the hustings. Even when every voter is able to vote as I have suggested earlier, some new candidates will still become MPs under the wings of experienced MPs or ministers in a GRC. They will never learn the invaluable experience which defeated PAP candidates Sitoh Yih Pin and Eric Low had.
It is hard to assess the performance of individual MPs in a GRC. Limiting the number of GRCs can thus help avoid a situation where “inferior candidates pass off as competent ones”。
Lastly, I think there should be a three-month period between the announcement of the new electoral boundaries by the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee and Nomination Day.
Due to factors such as demographic changes and the emergence of new housing estates, the re-drawing of electoral boundaries is understandable. But to avoid being misunderstood as “kiasu”, the ruling party should give people who are keen to join the political fray three months to study the changes and make preparations.
I am convinced that the People‘s Action Party welcomes good competition. The party has strong grassroots organisations and winning without a real contest is not something it hopes to see repeated in every General Election. In fact, many grassroots leaders are game for a contest to see how the grassroots bodies will measure up.
A nine-day election campaign is far too short. But if there was a three-month break for the parties to map out their strategies, then such a shorter campaigning period would be more acceptable.
If the government could consider these suggestions, I am hopeful that the next General Election would be different from all previous GEs. Then, every adult Singaporean would be able to exercise his right as a citizen to make an active contribution by casting a vote for the future of the country and for democracy.
（The writer is an insurance sales representative. Translated by Yap Gee Poh.）
給全國(guó)大選提些意見(jiàn)● 林金穆
大選已經(jīng)塵埃落定,一切回歸現(xiàn)實(shí),可是將來(lái)還會(huì)有無(wú)數(shù)次的大選,我們應(yīng)該為將來(lái)的無(wú)數(shù)次大選,建立一個(gè)更好更健全及比較公正平等的制度,為將來(lái)的更理想的民主社會(huì)鋪路。
2001年新加坡大選計(jì)票在進(jìn)行中。
在此提四點(diǎn)意見(jiàn),希望能起拋磚引玉的作用,大家集思廣益為更完美的未來(lái)新加坡政治發(fā)展貢獻(xiàn)己見(jiàn),多多少少協(xié)助提高新加坡人的政治意識(shí),治一治許多人的政治冷感癥。這四點(diǎn)意見(jiàn)如下：
一、真正的全民投票：
有些公民活了大半輩子,都還沒(méi)有履行過(guò)公民的權(quán)力,因?yàn)槠渌幼〉倪x區(qū)的候選人每一次都在無(wú)對(duì)手的情況下不戰(zhàn)而勝。這是民主制度下的一個(gè)遺憾及弊病。
筆者認(rèn)為應(yīng)該讓全民都有投票的機(jī)會(huì),即使無(wú)對(duì)手也可以讓公民投票,這樣至少可以讓選民知道他們的國(guó)會(huì)議員是誰(shuí),也使候選人有機(jī)會(huì)面對(duì)選民,不會(huì)變成不戰(zhàn)而勝的議員。若該選區(qū)（提名日沒(méi)有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的選區(qū)）的得票率少過(guò)50％就應(yīng)該舉行補(bǔ)選。這樣一來(lái),全國(guó)的平均得票率才比較有代表性。
二、非選區(qū)議員取代官委議員：
把非選區(qū)議員人數(shù)增加至10％,即允許國(guó)會(huì)有8至10位非選區(qū)議員,他們也可以包括執(zhí)政黨的高票落選的候選人。若有10位*議員在國(guó)會(huì)里,那么執(zhí)政黨的部長(zhǎng)議員們就有更多磨練的機(jī)會(huì),國(guó)會(huì)辯論將會(huì)更有水準(zhǔn),更精彩。
官委議員雖然可以代表某個(gè)領(lǐng)域的意見(jiàn),可是他們只是提出意見(jiàn),從來(lái)就沒(méi)有投票權(quán)可言。況且官委議員在人們的印象中也是政府的支持者,我想執(zhí)政黨也是非常歡迎健康有建設(shè)性的*的存在的。
我認(rèn)為,執(zhí)政黨的所謂影子內(nèi)閣,或其他的制度,是無(wú)法取代有建設(shè)性*的存在的,也不能刺激民主的進(jìn)程。
三、集選區(qū)與單選區(qū)議員比例應(yīng)該限制在三比一：
如果集選區(qū)與單選區(qū)議員的比例是目前的八比一,將會(huì)有更多的不戰(zhàn)而勝議員,這將無(wú)法讓競(jìng)選者發(fā)揮領(lǐng)袖潛質(zhì)。即使采取上述第一點(diǎn)所提到的全民投票方式,仍會(huì)有不少新議員是會(huì)在資深議員或部長(zhǎng)的帶領(lǐng)下順利進(jìn)入國(guó)會(huì)的,他們將永遠(yuǎn)無(wú)法得到像司徒宇斌、劉錫明的寶貴經(jīng)驗(yàn)。
集選區(qū)的議員的表現(xiàn)無(wú)法直接被評(píng)估,若限制集選區(qū)議員所占的比例,將可避免“濫芋充數(shù)”的現(xiàn)象在國(guó)會(huì)中出現(xiàn)。
四、劃分選區(qū)與提名日之間應(yīng)至少相隔三個(gè)月：
每一屆大選前,選區(qū)重新劃分是無(wú)可厚非的,因?yàn)槿丝诘牧鲃?dòng)、新組屋區(qū)的分布,重新劃分是可以理解的。不過(guò)在重新劃分選區(qū)之后,若有三個(gè)月時(shí)間讓所有有意參與競(jìng)選的人有時(shí)間研究及準(zhǔn)備,才不會(huì)被誤解為“怕輸”。
我認(rèn)為行動(dòng)黨其實(shí)是歡迎有建設(shè)性的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的,長(zhǎng)期的不戰(zhàn)而勝并非有強(qiáng)大基層組織的執(zhí)政黨所希望看到的情況。其實(shí),許多基層領(lǐng)袖也非常歡迎所屬選區(qū)有機(jī)會(huì)舉行選舉,因?yàn)檫@樣也可測(cè)試基層組織的工作表現(xiàn)。
競(jìng)選活動(dòng)規(guī)定為九天也許太短了,但若選區(qū)劃分之后有三個(gè)月的時(shí)間,讓大家有時(shí)間布陣,競(jìng)選時(shí)間短一些也可以接受。
若政府能夠考慮以上的幾個(gè)小意見(jiàn),我想下一屆大選將能夠真正見(jiàn)到一場(chǎng)前所未見(jiàn)的全國(guó)大選,全國(guó)選民將能同時(shí)行使公民的權(quán)力,為國(guó)家的前途、民主進(jìn)程作出積極的貢獻(xiàn),投下神圣的一票。
（作者從事保險(xiǎn)業(yè)）
I have four suggestions to make and I hope that they will stimulate more ideas from others. We can contribute more to Singapore‘s political development by sharing our ideas. This will also help Singaporeans to be more politically conscious and active.
Firstly, ensure that every eligible voter gets a chance to vote.
There are many adult Singaporeans who have yet to cast their votes because they happen to live in constituencies uncontested by the opposition. This is no doubt a drawback to our democratic system.
I believe that every eligible voter should be able to exercise his or her right to vote, even in cases of walkovers.This will allow voters to know who their Members of Parliament are. On the other hand, MPs will also get a better understanding of the constituents they are serving and not become MPs simply because the wards are not contested by the opposition.
If the MP or MPs in the uncontested constituencies, whether they are Single-Member Constituency or Group Representation Constituency, obtained less than 50% of valid vote, by-elections should be held. This will make the valid votes won more representative on a national level.
Secondly, the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament system should replace the Nominated MP scheme.
The percentage of NCMPs should be raised to 10%, in other words, allow up to 8 or 10 NCMPs in Parliament. They can also include the best losers from the ruling party. With 10 opposition MPs in the House, ministers and MPs will have no lack of opportunities to hone their political skills. This will improve the quality of debates in Parliament and make them more substantive and meaningful.
True, Nominated MPs can and do speak up for the particular fields they represent. But other than making comments and suggestions, they have no voting powers. NMPs are also seen by some people as supporters of the government. I believe the ruling party will welcome the existence of a constructive opposition.
To me, the ruling party‘s so-called shadow Cabinet or other schemes, can neither replace a constructive opposition nor help the growth of democracy.
Thirdly, the ratio of GRCs and SMCs should be 3 to 1.
The current 8 to 1 ratio means that many candidates will become MPs without a fight and thus not be able to display their leadership qualities at the hustings. Even when every voter is able to vote as I have suggested earlier, some new candidates will still become MPs under the wings of experienced MPs or ministers in a GRC. They will never learn the invaluable experience which defeated PAP candidates Sitoh Yih Pin and Eric Low had.
It is hard to assess the performance of individual MPs in a GRC. Limiting the number of GRCs can thus help avoid a situation where “inferior candidates pass off as competent ones”。
Lastly, I think there should be a three-month period between the announcement of the new electoral boundaries by the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee and Nomination Day.
Due to factors such as demographic changes and the emergence of new housing estates, the re-drawing of electoral boundaries is understandable. But to avoid being misunderstood as “kiasu”, the ruling party should give people who are keen to join the political fray three months to study the changes and make preparations.
I am convinced that the People‘s Action Party welcomes good competition. The party has strong grassroots organisations and winning without a real contest is not something it hopes to see repeated in every General Election. In fact, many grassroots leaders are game for a contest to see how the grassroots bodies will measure up.
A nine-day election campaign is far too short. But if there was a three-month break for the parties to map out their strategies, then such a shorter campaigning period would be more acceptable.
If the government could consider these suggestions, I am hopeful that the next General Election would be different from all previous GEs. Then, every adult Singaporean would be able to exercise his right as a citizen to make an active contribution by casting a vote for the future of the country and for democracy.
（The writer is an insurance sales representative. Translated by Yap Gee Poh.）
給全國(guó)大選提些意見(jiàn)● 林金穆
大選已經(jīng)塵埃落定,一切回歸現(xiàn)實(shí),可是將來(lái)還會(huì)有無(wú)數(shù)次的大選,我們應(yīng)該為將來(lái)的無(wú)數(shù)次大選,建立一個(gè)更好更健全及比較公正平等的制度,為將來(lái)的更理想的民主社會(huì)鋪路。
2001年新加坡大選計(jì)票在進(jìn)行中。
在此提四點(diǎn)意見(jiàn),希望能起拋磚引玉的作用,大家集思廣益為更完美的未來(lái)新加坡政治發(fā)展貢獻(xiàn)己見(jiàn),多多少少協(xié)助提高新加坡人的政治意識(shí),治一治許多人的政治冷感癥。這四點(diǎn)意見(jiàn)如下：
一、真正的全民投票：
有些公民活了大半輩子,都還沒(méi)有履行過(guò)公民的權(quán)力,因?yàn)槠渌幼〉倪x區(qū)的候選人每一次都在無(wú)對(duì)手的情況下不戰(zhàn)而勝。這是民主制度下的一個(gè)遺憾及弊病。
筆者認(rèn)為應(yīng)該讓全民都有投票的機(jī)會(huì),即使無(wú)對(duì)手也可以讓公民投票,這樣至少可以讓選民知道他們的國(guó)會(huì)議員是誰(shuí),也使候選人有機(jī)會(huì)面對(duì)選民,不會(huì)變成不戰(zhàn)而勝的議員。若該選區(qū)（提名日沒(méi)有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的選區(qū)）的得票率少過(guò)50％就應(yīng)該舉行補(bǔ)選。這樣一來(lái),全國(guó)的平均得票率才比較有代表性。
二、非選區(qū)議員取代官委議員：
把非選區(qū)議員人數(shù)增加至10％,即允許國(guó)會(huì)有8至10位非選區(qū)議員,他們也可以包括執(zhí)政黨的高票落選的候選人。若有10位*議員在國(guó)會(huì)里,那么執(zhí)政黨的部長(zhǎng)議員們就有更多磨練的機(jī)會(huì),國(guó)會(huì)辯論將會(huì)更有水準(zhǔn),更精彩。
官委議員雖然可以代表某個(gè)領(lǐng)域的意見(jiàn),可是他們只是提出意見(jiàn),從來(lái)就沒(méi)有投票權(quán)可言。況且官委議員在人們的印象中也是政府的支持者,我想執(zhí)政黨也是非常歡迎健康有建設(shè)性的*的存在的。
我認(rèn)為,執(zhí)政黨的所謂影子內(nèi)閣,或其他的制度,是無(wú)法取代有建設(shè)性*的存在的,也不能刺激民主的進(jìn)程。
三、集選區(qū)與單選區(qū)議員比例應(yīng)該限制在三比一：
如果集選區(qū)與單選區(qū)議員的比例是目前的八比一,將會(huì)有更多的不戰(zhàn)而勝議員,這將無(wú)法讓競(jìng)選者發(fā)揮領(lǐng)袖潛質(zhì)。即使采取上述第一點(diǎn)所提到的全民投票方式,仍會(huì)有不少新議員是會(huì)在資深議員或部長(zhǎng)的帶領(lǐng)下順利進(jìn)入國(guó)會(huì)的,他們將永遠(yuǎn)無(wú)法得到像司徒宇斌、劉錫明的寶貴經(jīng)驗(yàn)。
集選區(qū)的議員的表現(xiàn)無(wú)法直接被評(píng)估,若限制集選區(qū)議員所占的比例,將可避免“濫芋充數(shù)”的現(xiàn)象在國(guó)會(huì)中出現(xiàn)。
四、劃分選區(qū)與提名日之間應(yīng)至少相隔三個(gè)月：
每一屆大選前,選區(qū)重新劃分是無(wú)可厚非的,因?yàn)槿丝诘牧鲃?dòng)、新組屋區(qū)的分布,重新劃分是可以理解的。不過(guò)在重新劃分選區(qū)之后,若有三個(gè)月時(shí)間讓所有有意參與競(jìng)選的人有時(shí)間研究及準(zhǔn)備,才不會(huì)被誤解為“怕輸”。
我認(rèn)為行動(dòng)黨其實(shí)是歡迎有建設(shè)性的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的,長(zhǎng)期的不戰(zhàn)而勝并非有強(qiáng)大基層組織的執(zhí)政黨所希望看到的情況。其實(shí),許多基層領(lǐng)袖也非常歡迎所屬選區(qū)有機(jī)會(huì)舉行選舉,因?yàn)檫@樣也可測(cè)試基層組織的工作表現(xiàn)。
競(jìng)選活動(dòng)規(guī)定為九天也許太短了,但若選區(qū)劃分之后有三個(gè)月的時(shí)間,讓大家有時(shí)間布陣,競(jìng)選時(shí)間短一些也可以接受。
若政府能夠考慮以上的幾個(gè)小意見(jiàn),我想下一屆大選將能夠真正見(jiàn)到一場(chǎng)前所未見(jiàn)的全國(guó)大選,全國(guó)選民將能同時(shí)行使公民的權(quán)力,為國(guó)家的前途、民主進(jìn)程作出積極的貢獻(xiàn),投下神圣的一票。
（作者從事保險(xiǎn)業(yè)）